Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/10/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: October 25, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since 2014 Taro Pharmaceutical has colluded with other pharmaceutical companies to keep the price of generic products artificially high; (2) the foregoing conduct violated federal antitrust laws; (3) in turn, Taro Pharmaceutical’s revenues during the Class Period were the result of illegal conduct; and (4) as a result, Taro Pharmaceutical’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 9, 2016, Taro Pharmaceutical revealed that its subsidiary and two senior officers received grand jury subpoenas from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, seeking documents regarding the sale of generic pharmaceutical products. On this news, shares of Taro Pharmaceutical fell $4.94 per share or almost 4% to close at $119.42 per share on September 23, 2016. On October 17, 2016, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against Taro Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies alleging that they engaged in the price-fixing of Clobetasol since 2014 in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws.

On January 23, 2017, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on May 22, 2017. A corrected version of this Complaint was filed on June 19. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on October 11. On September 24, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.


Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: Israel


Ticker Symbol: TARO
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-08318
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
DATE FILED: 10/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/09/2016
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-08318
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
DATE FILED: 06/19/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2016
  1. Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available